Photos of me! Critiques?

[GroundquestMSA]

Additionally what is not a critique is "I don't like this". Okay...no one is asking for "I liked this" "I didn't like this". It's not helpful. Whether or not you are a fan of the subject matter as a whole is an opinion, personal likes/dislikes, not a critique.

Now, to say "I don't like these photos because they constantly have poor lighting" - now that is a critique and helpful.
To say "I don't like these photos because I don't like corsets" - that is a personal like/dislike and unhelpful.

Make sense? good.

Not at all.
The purpose of a critique is to illuminate the quality of the work, not to directly aid the artist. By what measure, though, do we judge? One can judge a work based on many different standards; technical, artistic, of appeal, of originality, etc. It is impossible to establish a standard measure of merit, therefore, "I don't like these photos because I don't like corsets" is just as important an observation as, "I don't like these photos because they constantly have poor lighting." They are both opinions, they both give the artist feedback on how their work is perceived, and if the goal is to please an audience they are equally helpful. If you don't care what anyone thinks then you have no possible use for a critique.

I thought the idea of critiques was standard, that people understood the difference between critique and opinion.

In reality there is no difference at all. A critique is a glorified and announced opinion. The standard (and inaccurate) idea of the critique meanwhile, is criticism. That is mainly what we all will get if we ask for a critique from the general population.

See there, I can argue about more than whether --- ------- ---- --------- or not

[Batgirl]

I realize that what you are asking here is for people to critique the lighting and composition of the photographs, but you have to remember that when you ask for critiques, you must accept that critiques are going to come in all sorts of forms, both good and bad, and may not come in the form you wish. People are people. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and Art and subject matter is not mutually exclusive.

I have seen some of your pics and you do have a great eye, so if your interested in learning more, get a hold of some of the cave photographers in the community and send them your pics and get their feedback privately. The best way to learn is through their experience. And I am sure that many of them, like Bob Biddix, Nathan Williams and Alan Cressler are always willing to provide critiques and assistance if asked.

I won't presume to give you any feedback on the pics because I am not particularly fond of photos with corset dressed or ethereally dressed women in caves. I enjoy pics of caves and passages that depict real life activities. In other words, I like to see cavers in action, but that is just me. I am sure that your choice of art photography is appealing to some as I know that Nathan's photos do have an audience. You just have to learn to take from this thread what is helpful and dismiss what isn't.

[LukeM]

I have to disagree with those saying that a critique is merely an opinion. Maybe by certain definitions it is, but in the world of "art" it implies a certain level of knowledge or cultural awareness on the part of the viewer. There is most certainly such as thing as a crap critique, and saying "I don't like corsets" falls into that category. Now, no one that I've seen in this thread has actually said anything like that, so this is all just directed at those playing with the hypothetical. It's like telling someone with a classic restored Ford that you don't like that brand of car so their car is no good. Sure, you can say that, but you haven't contributed anything worthwhile, and I would argue that you're probably just looking to get a rise out of the person.

Also, if someone is taking "artistic" photos and you have no artistic sensibility or awareness of trends in photography, art, and the world at large how useful is your opinion really going to be? You have to be honest with yourself. If you live in a hole in the wall and have never taken a picture in your life your opinions are going to be a lot less useful than those from someone who's been practicing cave photography for 20 years. If that makes you sore, then maybe you're the one who can't take a critique.

Amy, I don't like grey rock. Sorry. Deal with it.

[Cheryl Jones]

It seems to me that the responsibility for the effectiveness of a critique lies with the person whose work is being critiqued, rather than the person offering the critique.

The person being critiqued must decide what value to place on those critiquing his/her work, and thus which opinions and reviews should be ignored and which are worthy of attention. Even in the world of professional art and critiquers (is that a word?) reviews by some people are worth far more than those by others.

As others have said, anyone presenting their work to "the world" must be prepared to filter and ignore comments, and not get ruffled by the ones who don't offer the advice, or the quality of advice, as expected. Take the quality comments to heart, ignore the rest.

Best remedy for irritating critiques:

Cheryl

[Squirrel Girl]

[Jon]

Amy, you asked for input but didn't clarify. There are people who take photos for art only, and people who take photos to sell as art. There is where you get into opinion. If for profit it doesn't matter if every aspect of the photo is perfect, if the subject matter appeals to no one then it wont sell. Then opinion matters . A person wanting to see the moment of impact on JFK's head isn't going to worry much about perfect lighting or composition. He'll pay for the splat shot. I don't mean to be crude but that is the reality of it. Some may have taken the request in that light more than you expected.

As a side note I might add that to me at least your sob story about poor poor you and your being a scientist etc really didn't make brownie points. Many of us make mistakes as far as the general populous is concerned but don't try and justify our actions or reactions with an irrelevant sob story. There are many people who probably are much farther down the food chain than yourself who don't do that, and their stories would/should cause you to crawl under a rock from shame. Anything worthwhile in life is worth getting guanoed on. If you can't stand the guano, get out of the cave.

The appearance of touching the formation hit a nerve with many cavers just as a photo showing a scientist making an obvious major procedural blunder might raise your hackles.

[Jon]

Amy,
Just got the NSS news. I was under the impression that some, many ice formations are seasonal and go away (also regenerate much faster) so it is hard for there to be permanent damage to what may soon be a puddle. As for the girls posing on the flowstone. Maybe they had Saran wrap on the bottoms of their feet and weren't actually "on the flowstone". Captions state one is on the bank of the flowstone river so not really on the flowstone, the other may be standing in flowing water as it appears to be the low spot. Maybe the only way from Point A to Point B was across the flowstone. (There wasn't a need justified or not ((only route)) for you to "appear" to touch the formation, yes I have touched formations but with nitrel gloves). Point is the defense of I know I did but so did they isn't a good one. Besides one could argue that at least they had helmets on. If you accept that what you did was perceived as wrong by many or most, quit trying to justify it. I would let it die before you dig yourself any deeper.



Question , if you didn't think about how it might appear that you were touching the formation in the photo before you took/posted it, what were you thinking when you weren't touching it?

[Mudduck]

At what point does this get left alone. This has gone so far from a meaningful discussion that's its ridiculous. I think everyone needs too move on.

[Jeff Bartlett]

I'm sure I've left blood (on-trail) in Lech.

No you didn't. I cleaned it up for you while you were whimpering, like a little girl, in a corset.

Alright, who let Bonny on Cavechat? Is there a manager I can speak with?

[bronzzhorse]

Amy,
I'm going to go out on a big limb here and do exactly what you asked of us in the first place... Critiques on the photography, and not the "conservation issues"...I am not a professional photographer, but I have done lots of cave, nature and portrait photography, so here's what I see.....

Photo #1:
Not enough lighting on yourself..... I'm sure you had your helmet with you, so next time, try using the light(s) from it to help with some front lighting. It looks as though you are trying to get that "looking at the formation" shot, but your face isn't visible to portray the idea of the shot. It also detracts from the "corset and cave" concept, if I can't actually see the corset.
Also, the flash burst is too visible.
Good idea, photographically, but the shot is terribly hampered by lighting issues...(which I know you are already aware of)

Photo #2:
The B&W is a good idea in theory, but in caves, it just seems to make the photo seem "drab", especially if you use "hard light" like you did in this shot... It also makes the shadow too crisp, which detracts from the main photographic subjects, IE, Model and formation. TIP: for doing B&W in caves try using heavy diffusion on your flash. It will help with the shadow "crispness". Personally, I would have preferred to have seen this shot in color, so I could see the cave's color, as well as the color of the corset...ESPECIALLY if the color in the formation and the color of the corset "matched" Good shot, again, but with lighting issues, and possibly in color. Try taking multiples of each shot, with different camera settings and lighting setups.

Photo #3
My only major critiques of this shot are:
It needs just a "smidgen" of front lighting on you, so you can tell your silhouette is an actual person and not just a very human like shaped formation.
The "hot spot" just behind your derriere needs to be toned down... this shot could benefit greatly from some diffusion to tone that hot spot down just a hair....Good concept overall, just needs the hot spot turned down, and the front lighting turned up.
EDIT: Another point on this photo, is, again, if I can't see the corset, it kind of detracts from the "corset and caves" concept. This, again can be fixed with slight front lighting.

Photo #4
First, it is B&W, so.....(You already know my standpoint on B&W, so I won't bore you with opinionated redundancy)
The biggest issue with this one is that it has no real focal point...You are too far away from the formation to portray the idea.....I would have moved the camera a little closer to the subjects, and moved the "model" closer to the formation...that way you can more clearly see that the "model" is intently looking at the formation.... Please don't take this wrong, but it is plain. It makes me think "OK, so there's a girl in a cave..wearing a dress and a corset..huh".....It just lacks the certain element that separates a "picture" from a "Photograph"

All in all, you have the right idea, you just need to work on your lighting issues..... Try diffusion, and try "light painting". If you don't want to carry a ton of kit, here's another tip: Go grab some cheap led flashlights from Lowes or any other hardware place (try different color spectrum bulbs too, IE: yellow, white, and blue spectrums), and set them up for lighting...here's are a couple of examples of what you can do with some cheap LED flashlights, some diffusers, and a prolonged exposure.:




REMEMBER, there is NOTHING that says your lighting HAS to come from a FLASH!!!! Hope this helps!!
Cheers, and keep shooting!!!

[bronzzhorse]

Amy,
As for the girls posing on the flowstone. Maybe they had Saran wrap on the bottoms of their feet and weren't actually "on the flowstone".

Seriously??? You can look and see that they don't....just saying...

Captions state one is on the bank of the flowstone river so not really on the flowstone,

Yes, and the other caption says plainly "On the Flowstone River"....and in the first, it is plainly obvious that the model IS on flowstone...again, just saying...

the other may be standing in flowing water as it appears to be the low spot.

What water?? this is obviously dry formation, slightly damp at most.... again, one only need look closer to find the details.

Maybe the only way from Point A to Point B was across the flowstone.

Still not an excuse.....once again, just saying.

Besides one could argue that at least they had helmets on.

..... Um... but what about proper footwear??????

If you accept that what you did was perceived as wrong by many or most, quit trying to justify it.

.... but not by all, so need in justification is, in my eyes, justified.....Just sayin...... wow that was a lot of "Just"'s....

I'm not taking sides with anyone here, as I can sympathize with both parties, but the fact remains that very few people have actually replied to this thread with anyting even remotely close to what the original poster had asked for critique on the actual photography........Thread Hijacking at its finest.... Leave it to CaveChat...(sorry Jon, wasn't trying to single your post out, it was just one of many perfect examples of my point.)

[NZcaver]

I'm not taking sides with anyone here, as I can sympathize with both parties, but the fact remains that not one person has actually replied to this thread with anyting even remotely close to what the original poster had asked for critique on the actual photography........

"Not one person" has replied with the photographic critique asked for by the original poster? What?? Clearly you need to read through the replies again. There are at least six other people besides you who have commented on lighting, composition and other photographic attributes. Namely Todd, Jon, Martha, Bob, Barbara, myself and probably a few more I missed.

This dead horse was thrashed to a bloody smear on the pavement long ago but once again... when asking for critique on a cave photo one should prepare oneself to receive an onslaught of opinions and advice on the WHOLE picture and what impressions and messages it might convey.

PS good effort with your earlier critique post.

[bronzzhorse]

"Not one person" has replied with the photographic critique asked for by the original poster? What?? Clearly you need to read through the replies again. There are at least six other people besides you who have commented on lighting, composition and other photographic attributes. Namely Todd, Jon, Martha, Bob, Barbara, myself and probably a few more I missed.

Point taken, and yes I suppose there were a few replies on the actual photography, so I'm going to edit that whole section out, to be fair.

when asking for critique on a cave photo one should prepare oneself to receive an onslaught of opinions and advice on the WHOLE picture and what impressions and messages it might convey.

Agree'd.... As a photographer, I am more than familiar with the harsh realities of photographic critisizm in ALL genre's of photography, including cave oriented. But I also think that the whole conservation side of the "critiquing" went way to extremes....the real point of all the argument could have been summarized very simply....
"If you touched the formation for photographic purposes only, then SHAME ON YOU, please, if you haven't already, take that pic down, as it could offend some folks. Now regarding the photographic aspects.....".....end of story... No need for the all out barrage.

[Jon]

Josh,

Most of what you commented on, my saran wrap etc comments, were meant to be sarcastic. I had noticed that replies along the line she hoped for went mainly unanswered. I was trying to make the point of the absurdity of other comments. Maybe I should have added that maybe Yoda was levitating the girls an angstrom above the flowstone to clarify.

[bronzzhorse]

Maybe I should have added that maybe Yoda was levitating the girls an angstrom above the flowstone to clarify.

"Now that's funny right there, and I don't care who you are"